Talk:2005 papal conclave/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Pre-death

Likely, maybe, but this is not encyclopedic, as

a) we don't know for certain that it will take place in 2005, and

b) it seems very speculative.

I'd propose deletion.

I agree. This speculation could be moved to some other article.

I too question the necessity of this article at this instant, but, regardless, I have renamed it to "Papal election of 2005". --timc | Talk 18:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The necessity of this article is maybe not current yet. But it undoubtedly will be in the very near future.

Well, it's still not officialy confirmed, but it isn't very likely that he will stay pope anyhow. - Lucas

It seems almost certain that the pope will die within the next few days. That said, so long as it is theoretically possible that he might live until January 1, 2006, it does not seem appropriate to have this article. john k 20:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No matter how "likely" the passing of the Pope might be. To create an article about "the papal election of 2005" while the Pope is still alive is in poor taste, inappropriate and just plain offensive. There's no election with the Pope still alive. As with many aspects of diplomacy, timing is of the essence, and it was completely off in this case. Some people got ahead of the events and made an awful error in judgement. This was a very, very, very bad move. If only to preserve the dignity and respectability of this project, this article should be deleted, and recreated only when the Pope passes and a Papal election actually takes place, whichever the year might be. Redux 23:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes this page was created early, but it doesn't make any sense to delete it now. The page would have to recreated in a few hours anyway. (Alphaboi867 23:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC))

That you are assuming JP II will die in a few hours. As been said, however unlikly, there might not be an papal election this year. He has not die yet, he has not resign, I would agree with others that it's not appropriate to have this article at the present time. KTC 00:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"This article or section contains references to a current or ongoing event."

No, it doesn't.

I don't feel as strongly about this as Redux does, but let's be clear that this is really jumping the gun. That said, keep in mind that this article isn't linked from anywhere—readers cannot stumble across this by accident (well, maybe literally if they chose "random page" enough, but let's ignore that). This has to be kept in mind while judging the "offensiveness". Likewise, I sincerely doubt the "dignity" and "respectability" are in such great peril as Redux is suggesting. No doubt many newspapers are working on exactly such an article as we speak. The only difference is that those offer no way at all to readers to find out that they are beforehand, while our readers consist of Wikipedia contributors as well, who can. A Wikipedia contributor, like a newspaper editor, would probably not deem this quite so serious an offense as an average reader might. This sounds more like a moral panic than an actual response to people who were offended.

We might have a separate WikiProject or some space somewhere where articles on purely speculative but highly likely events are kept in storage for collaborative editing. Putting it in a user space would present a nasty little problem: any number of users could have such articles up their sleeves, and then it's a race to who gets there first, while others are forced to integrate their approaches. This is wasteful.

I agree, however, that this kind of article should not be in the main space, because they are by definition not verifiable. I consider Redux' suggestion of deleting it outright to be "disrespectful" and "offensive" to those who contributed to the article, however, and two wrongs don't make a right. We can commit ourselves to moving this somewhere else for the interim, and to doing that rightaway for future articles of this kind, but there's no need to beat ourselves for this faux pas. Yes, it was improper and ill-advised, but I see declaring this article anathema and demanding its execution for transgression as even more harmful to the encyclopedia than our assumedly damaged respectability. JRM 01:45, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Correction to the above: this article is linked to by other articles (I was looking at the links to the talk page). Now that obviously invalidates most of my arguments. These links should be removed ASAP. Drawing contributor attention to this article is good, but drawing reader attention is not acceptable. JRM 01:47, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

I've removed all links to this article. They should be reinstated if and when we know there will be a papal election in 2005, and can back this up with references. Independent speculation is beyond an encyclopedia. JRM 01:58, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Newspapers prepare obituaries for famous people years in advance - irt's not a big deal to have an article like this prepped and ready to go. PMA 02:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although this article is fairly obviously going to be pertinent within the next week or two, it shows a terrible disrespect for a man who has led the world's one billion Catholics for the past quarter century. At the hour of his death to focus on who will succeed him in place of his legacy and his achievements is rather tasteless. I guess the best option for the time being is to keep the article in existence, but to lock edits on it and eliminate links to it until the Pope has actually passed. --PatadyBag 02:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)--PatadyBag 02:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re locking edits: no. See Wikipedia:Protection policy; this page matches no criteria. Protecting pages is a very last resort for serious problems. There is no reason to lock this page down if we make sure our readers can't stumble across it. On the contrary, there is every reason to allow our contributors to make the article is good as possible for when its time finally comes, even before it does. If nothing else, it shows our commitment to accuracy. Protecting it sends out the wrong message. JRM 02:28, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

I understand your feelings regarding general Wikipedia policy, but it strikes me that the lack of sensitivity shown in creating the article is a bit too opportunistic. Although the article's creators may have had good intentions in wanting to share information, it is not appropriate to speak about the Pope as someone who is practically already dead (not to mention that most of the pertinent information was already discussed on the "Papabile" page). Wiki policy aside, it would at least be a nice gesture to exercise a little bit of restraint until the conclave actually occurs.--PatadyBag 02:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Letting contributors know about this article on the JP II talk page was the right thing to do - linking to it in the JP II article was wrong and you were right to remove it JRM. PMA 02:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

@PatadyBag: Absolutely, which is why we should be conservative about making this information available to readers. I strenuously object to protecting pages as "gestures", however. If you feel a gesture is in order, you are free to suggest its deletion—this would show people for at least five days that others wanted it gone. Other than that, the only gestures I can think of is offering personal apologies to readers who express their dismay—so far, there haven't been any (not counting the Wikipedians themselves, of course; we are talking on the subject right now). We could also adapt the article's header to make sure it is not actually about an "ongoing event" or even a proper article, but merely something we work on as callous and opportunistic people who are duly sorry about their work ethic. Well, not quite as dramatic as that, but you get my drift. :-) And, of course, as I've said, this sort of article shouldn't be in the main namespace, but at present there's no good place to move it to. JRM 02:51, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Fair enough- I'm satisfied :-) --PatadyBag 02:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And as i said up thread newspapers prepare obituaries of famous people far in advance and would also be prepping an article on the papal election - "It's not the children that need their eyes covered it's the parents" as they say. PMA 03:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: I did suggest we deleted the article from the main space for the time being, but as a gesture aimed at fixing this faux pas, not as punishment for those who got ahead of the facts and created this article. I also said that, as soon as reality catches up, the article could be restored. We (meaning the Admins) have the technical resources to do this.
Another point is that people have been quoting the well known technique of news media of putting together obituaries, or information about people before they die, so that it can be used as soon as they die. First of all, this is not a news website, it's an encyclopedia, so not every procedure used in that realm would apply to us automatically. This is not the case here, at least not entirely. It's perfectly valid to gather and start organizing information beforehand, so that we can be prepared to have a good article up asap. But the difference is: newspapers may gather information, but if they have an ounce of responsibility they won't have an edition out with a headline saying something like "Papal election to be held any day now" while the Pope is still alive. That's why I said that our responsibility was at stake. As per our dignity, we cannot ignore how precipitated and unthoughtful the decision to create this article was.
The fact that the article may not be in plain sight, especially for the ocasional visitor, only serves to protect us from taking criticism for this mistake, but it does not excuse us from the fact that we, and especially because we are an encyclopedia, were precipitated, tactless and offensive. As long as the Pope is alive and this article remains [in the main space], we are still at fault, regardless of the fact that the general public may not be reading it.
Incidentelly, the predictions are failing already. In Roman time, they said that the Pope was not expected to make it through the night, but it's already early morning in Rome and he is still alive. How can we build an entire article from speculation? Regards, Redux 04:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

excellent

I think it's an excellent article and very informative. It's just a fact that one of the most influential and widely known figures on the face of planet earth is really sick and might die. Soon. People may be interested to know exactly what would happen if this occurs. --Alterego 03:41, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

If people want to know about how a Conclave to elect a Pope works, I believe we have an article on that. If they want to know details about John Paul II's failing health, our article on him carries that information. It is completely unnecessary to have this article "predicting" the "Papal election of 2005", as if it was a consumated fact already. Regards, Redux 04:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, i'm not worried about offending anyone so "innapropriate" doesn't carry much weight. --Alterego 04:08, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Even the Vatican concedes that the Holy Father's death is imminent. There will almost certainly be a Papal election this year. (Alphaboi867 04:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Nobody's contesting that there will almost undoubtedly be a papal election this year, and nobody here has taken offense to the article's existence in and of itself. It only seems right that as a mere measure of respect that we hold off of speaking of this election so matter-of-factly until the Pope has actually died. The information available here is available on several other pages without such a... "realistic" title, so it shouldn't be that difficult to post relevant and topical ideas without trampling on JP II's (soon-to-be) memory. --PatadyBag 04:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I feel that is a bit POV - as previously stated his death is iminent, once a papal election goes forth the contents of this article could be moved to a ==Speculation== section. To allow ones religious sentimentalities to invade this project is entirely disagreeable - the fact remains it will happen, and we are informing. Regardless, predicting the next is not "trampling on the memory" - it matters alot, the pope is one of the most powerful positions in the world. Not only is he seen as infallible, but this infallibility is theoretically believed by a billion people. Arguements that law will always supercede papal decision is also flawed, the scriptures clearly state that if there is a conflict between the law of a nation and the law of God (keep in mind that the Pope is literally God's representative on Earth) then the law of God, hence Papal determination, takes precidence. It does matter who is next, we shouldn't avoid this due to cultural sentiment. --Oldak Quill 12:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)